IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Question

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 28 September 2016 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9930C12B18F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWXr1qnHCLFz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43DA412B18B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id g62so55047003lfe.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4B6NGN5xcLWGdb87T3SDm8pBCHlaXjUZym/R60ZQu8g=; b=JW/EDuWvL/lG4KVfxPd5397JJvXn0YTSxxVse5Oc+M6T7m6EbzI4rsfN0ec+yKi0Tw av+NCvbTRhqkBaQ4NmSGwJdUd8yFbLoSY1gCCyZ20n/iaAzM6fIajczyYk5Oi11tNoNs vauLNugoX7yaUnF6ttrsQ5ZwHyRthqiTfTch2aoPUgeQF4/aLN2qMP1yDtg2LUcWIwut zS4cJWLwG3Aa5UKam3Z8cvKcisQGfZHUXvkmrssrCeB5NnifhPf2s5ywf6wC80xry1fG vuOWsms5rZh3jZTMw2qBHvGsNAHrSgqqkWIO8TcIamtyGq5+FFgVAifmOTnTvHv84i9I OJ3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4B6NGN5xcLWGdb87T3SDm8pBCHlaXjUZym/R60ZQu8g=; b=FRxRSp4S6qdEaCGttmKsGltQ9rFy8oYjcxU1O8j7GsuWN0Y+t34xl9ILwidBTGkY+7 MolVNzkEg3HWBZqDz2B0uZkCCCqE9Y2v0XdJwROq3YoswPjhCjPdZxzocS8NWCAsMf32 8S7aVHo3RR4hQ7X2PF5+pNEhlkkY7XH6kLidcDpsjT12ue22DJcRNUfMCHFkpTn8rPr8 jMKuHdprUiw9N1JQ/m/Bw5dOrsVsM4/S38iLQIFOHCtMmxbq1o2GrmT7lWthdHgf7Ugq +zh4ewhhjJQ6dTzIlSSl91Md+loW/cM1tBzZCrLOpa83eXnBZNjeM6AOfTteQULeJWmF hW4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOBJM6DZ2FqoJQY4h/24GZNXVfyqH/Pvu2zkqR1DEuz87MTJKQEV5VYAmRBvjFBQszLBUr7JhL0KvWJ4A==
X-Received: by 10.25.76.136 with SMTP id z130mr12718950lfa.126.1475074518285; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <756CE9AA-57F8-4797-92C1-E3946B8E31E7@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <DB4PR04MB055767E3B1418456D580625DAFCC0@DB4PR04MB0557.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <D3E4C547-B66D-436D-BF0E-2588777D7629@thehobsons.co.uk> <756CE9AA-57F8-4797-92C1-E3946B8E31E7@thehobsons.co.uk>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:54:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1myTnpUr8mK9iDQK1EhxmsyrDVrXfG5rSuhTSSTRt54qA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Hobson <dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Ihm4apgWh7uB_GRiZD-jzc9QcJo>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Question
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:55:22 -0000

TBH, I don't really agree that the code I wrote is the most pure and
complete implementation--that's probably Tomek's code.   Of course,
there's a lot of new code in the ISC server now, but you were talking
about the past... I was aware that you had send this to dhcwg--it
didn't seem like a problem that you mentioned the ISC server, since
it's a good choice for someone who's curious about DHCP but isn't an
operator to take a look at.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Simon Hobson <dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> Of particular note - and relevant to this list since this is the support list for it - the ISC (the same people that bring us BIND) wrote a server, relay agent, and client package which was designed to be as pure and clean an implementation of the protocol as written as is possible.
>
> Just testing ;-)
> I see no-one picked up on the fact that I was responding to the DHC WG list and not the ISC DHCP list :-/
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status